A particularly acrimonious chapter in this tale of reactions to Secret Mark involves one of Smith’s former doctoral students, Jacob Neusner, now known for his prolific writing on Judaism in the late Second Temple and Tannaitic periods. Neusner was initially positive about Smith’s discovery. When he penned the dust jacket endorsement for The Secret Gospel he described it in laudatory terms as ‘a brilliant account of how Morton Smith reached a major discovery in the study of first-century Christianity’. [1] For a variety of reasons, many of which have been documented elsewhere, [2] relations between Smith and Neusner deteriorated with both calling into question the quality of the scholarship produced by the other, at times in the most vitriolic terms. After Smith’s death, Neusner described him as ‘a charlatan and a fraud’ and he continued by depicting Secret Mark as ‘the forgery of the century’. [3]
Such reactions may well leave the general reader somewhat confused, with little sense of how to assess the merits of this vitriolic series of claim and counterclaim. First, it should be stated that, contrary to some accounts, Morton Smith was not the only person ever to view the text. In 1976 the book containing Secret Mark was transferred from the library at Mar Saba to the Jerusalem Patriarchate library. The then librarian, Father Kallistos Dourvas, cut the pages containing the text out of the book, and took colour photographs. [4] These were published by Charles Hedrick in 2000. [5] The story of the transfer of the book is elucidated by Guy Stroumsa. He recounts a trip he took from Jerusalem to Mar Saba. He was accompanied by three others, now deceased, Prof David Flusser, Prof Shlomo Pines and Archimandrite Meliton. Apparently, because of thefts from the library the party was not optimistic of success. Stroumsa describes the search for the book by a young monk.
We did not put our expectations too high, but at some point, the monk did find the book, with ‘Smith 65’ inscribed on its front page, and the three manuscript pages of Clement’s letter written on the blank pages at the end of the book, exactly as described by Smith. The book had obviously remained where Smith had found it and had replaced it, after having photographed the manuscript letter. It was obvious to all of us that the precious book should not be left in place, but rather be deposited in the library of the Patriarchate. So we took the book back to Jerusalem, and Father Meliton brought it to the library. [6]
The existence of a second set of photographs and the testimony of Stroumsa should finally quiet any doubts that the manuscript existed or that Smith controlled access to it. Unfortunately, subsequent to its transferral to the Patriarchate library in Jerusalem the whereabouts of the manuscript has become uncertain. Perhaps it was lost, misplaced, stolen, sequestered or sold on the antiquities market. [7] (Paul Foster. Secret Mark: Uncovering a Hoax The Expository Times November 2005 117: 66-68)
[1] See Smith, The Secret Gospel
[2] H. Shanks, ‘Annual Meetings Offer Intellectual Bazaar and Moments of High Drama’, BAR 11:2 (1985) 16. Brown, Mark’s Other Gospel, 39–45.
[3] J. Neusner and N. Neusner, The Price of Excellence: Universities in Conflict during the Cold War Era (New York: Continuum, 1995) 78.
[4] C. Hedrick, ‘The Secret Gospel of Mark: Stalemate in the Academy’, JECS 11 (2003) 140.
[5] C. Hedrick, ‘Secret Mark: New Photographs, New Witnesses’, The Fourth R 13.5 (2000) 3–11, 14–16.
[6] G. Stroumsa, ‘Comments on Charles Hedrick’s Article: A Testimony’, JECS 11 (2003) 147–48.
[7] Hedrick, ‘The Secret Gospel of Mark: Stalemate in the Academy’, 140